Kolkata Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Asha Agarwal and ors. Vs. Mohan Sharma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT164(HC)
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.1. This is to consider an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by an order dated 12.3.2003 passed by Sri Sukumar Chakraborty, Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1994 affirming the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Sri M. Murmu, Executive Magistrate, Midnapore in M.R. Case No. 104(S) of 1986 under Section 147 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Dwaraka Prosad Agarwal (since deceased) to remove the illegal construction or to demolish the construction of brick wall and iron gate of the premises.2. In short the petition is that R.S. Plot No. 868 of Mouza Kharagpur Khas Jungle measuring an area of 0.10 acre of land belonged to one Gorelala. On 7.7.1959 he sold 7 decimals out of 10 decimals of land to one Pyarelal and the rest 3 decimals of land was sold to Badami Devi on 25.1.62. Pyarelal purchased Badami's 3 decimals of land on 23.6.1964, thus, became the owner of 10 decimals...
Suniti Bala Debnath Vs. Lal Parshi Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT352(HC)
A.K. Mitra. J.1. Two suits being T.S. No. 168/70 and 150/71 have been tried analogously for the sake of convenience inasmuch as some common questions were involved in both the suits.2. T.S. No. 168/70 was filed by Sm. Suniti Bala Debnath against defendant No. 1 Ramkishan Dube (presently deceased) and substituted by defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(o) as his legal representatives. The case made out by Suniti Bala Debnath is inter alia as follows:The suit property that is premises No. 299, Gopal Lal Thakur Road, originally belonged to Late Hemanta Kr. Roy on his death. His two sons and grand-sons sold the same to one Jagatjyoti Seal in 1931. Two sons of Late Hemanta Kr. Roy are (1) Sailen Kr. Roy and (2) Arun Kr. Roy. Said Jagatjyoti sold the property in 1935 to Smt. Manada Sundari Dasi. Said Manada Sundari sold the property to one Madan Chandra Chanda, her grand-son in 1945. Madan Chanda sold the property to Suniti Bala on 28.5.1969. Allegedly, Ramkishan was a tenant under Madan Chandra Chanda....
Somnath Roy and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN99
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J. 1. This is to consider an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the instance of the petitioners husband & mother-in-law being aggrieved by the order passed in G. R. Case No. 1060 of 1996 dated 31.8.99 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah (Tangra P.S. case No. 80 dated 22.5.1996 under Sections 498A, 406 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Being aggrieved by the taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation is the prime consideration for adjudication as has been contended by the learned lawyer for the petitioner. The backdrop may be stated in brief that the parties were married by way of registration on 12.2.1995 with the stipulation that the petitioner/husband's apartment is unfit for living with wife and one new flat at Motijhil Avenue which was expected to be handed over to the husband by 31.3.1995. Thereafter as per mutual settlement the wife was to stay...
Gimpex Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J and C Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN40
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This interlocutory application (T. No. 591 of 2003) dated November 3rd, 2003 has been filed by the plaintiff in its pending suit (C. S. No. 293 of 2003). The prayers in this application read as follows: 'a) An order of injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants and agents from receiving and/or making payment under the Letter of Credit bearing No. CALJ/FCL/132/03 dated 10th June, 2003 opened by the petitioner through respondent No. 2 as issuing bank and respondent No. 3 as confirming bank;b) The respondent No, 1, its men, servant and/or agent be also restrained from negotiating the Letter of Credit bearing No. CALJ/FCL/ 132/03 and create third party interest in respect thereof;c) The respondent No. 1 be directed to put in security for a sum of USD 8180 being the till date claim for loss and compensation made by the overseas buyer of the petitioner;d) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers above;e) Necessary order as to costs;f) Such further or ...
Riyaz Khan and ors. Vs. Lieutenant Governor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal83,2004(2)CHN165
ORDERSubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 12 (twelve) vessel owners, inter alia, challenging the circular dated July 28, 2003, issued with the approval of the competent authority, under the signature of Assistant Secretary (Shipping), Andaman and Nicobar Administration, permitting all M.S. class cargo vessels above 50 tons possessing valid MMO certificates to undertake transportation/ shipments of Government cargo on monthly lowest bid basis.2. In the writ petition the said petitioners, also, challenged all consequential notifications/tenders and allotment and acceptance of the offers of the ship owners on the basis of the said circular dated July, 28, 2003.3. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned advocate, appearing in support of the writ petition, attacks the said circular and all consequential actions of the administration on three counts. Mr. Banerjee submits that the administration arbitrarily and without any bona fide reas...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Forward Seamen Union and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN509
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated June 18, 2003, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 40 of 2003.2. This writ petition relates to engagement, recruitment or employment of 36 (thirty six) bazarmen/canteen crew on the ship M.V. Akbar. The relief that has been claimed by the petitioners has to be considered in the light of the amended provisions of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 as amended by Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Act, 2002. The bazarmen could claim the benefit of seamen or seafarers only if they could satisfy the test of the definition given in the Explanation (b) to Section 95 of the said Act.3. There was a long-standing dispute regarding appointment of the employees for providing canteen facilities to the passengers of the vessels. Ultimately, public interest litigation was moved before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated February 3, 1998, constituted an ad hoc committee to find out ...
Genesis International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(173)ELT235(Cal)
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this application the petitioners have substantially challenged the enquiry in relation to the drawback received and/or receivable by the petitioner No. 1 for supplies made at Special Economic Zone under summons being Annexure P-3 to the petition and also proceeding thereunder, and further search and seizure. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be one of the partners thereof. It is stated in the petition, the first petitioner has been carrying on business of manufacturing leather goods meant for marketing and selling in indigenous market as well as for supply to the exporters, who are also carrying on business within Special Economic Zone. The petitioners are not the exporters, but by virtue of their supplies of the finished leather goods to the exporters within the Special Economic Zone, they are entitled to get the facility of duty draw-back, treating their sale as aforesaid to be deemed export. Such duty draw-back facility is allowable under the provisi...
Saviour Clinic (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Kol.)479
The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 11-2-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of an order made under section 201(1)/194-I of the Act for assessment year 1996-97.In the solitary ground the assessee has disputed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order in confirming the demand raised under section 201(1)/194-I of the Income Tax Act.It was noted by the assessing officer that in the case of survey conducted on 23-6-2000, on the basis of allegation made by Sri Shyam Sunder Gupta, one of the landlords of the building at 2, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kol.-14, which was being occupied by the assessee as tenant since 1998-99. It was alleged by Mr. Gupta in his petition dated 14-6-2000, since 1995 the assessee-tenant has not issued the certificate to him though it deducted TDS amounting to Rs. 10,000 per month. He further submitted that out of monthly rent of Rs. 50,000, he was paid only Rs. 40,000 per month and the balance amount of Rs. 10,000 was deducted by the tenant...
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poddar Projects Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD247Cal
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(4) on the recommendation of the Division Bench of the Tribunal for considering the issue as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surcharge on the municipal taxes recovered by the owner of the premises from tenants is to be taxed as part of the rent recovered for the purpose of determination of income from house property.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the assessee company had disclosed income from various sources including business and house property in the relevant assessment year under consideration. The assessee company was having l/3rd ownership in building known as Toddar Court' at 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata prior to assessment year 1997-98, the other 2/3rd part being owned by Poddar Udyog Ltd. Subsequently, by scheme of arrangement sanctioned by Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, the assessee became approximately 50 per cent owner of the said building from assessment year 1997...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poddar Projects. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)270ITR73(Kol.)
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(4) on the recommendation of the Division Bench of the Tribunal for considering the issue as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surcharge on the municipal taxes recovered by the owner of the premises from tenants is to be taxed as part of the rent recovered for the purpose of determination of income from house property.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the assessee company had disclosed income from various sources including, business and house property in the relevant assessment year under consideration. The assessee company was having 1/3^rd ownership in building known as 'Poddar Court' at 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata prior to assessment year 1997-98, the other 2/3^rd part being owned by Poddar Udyog' Ltd. Subsequently, by scheme of arrangement Sanctioned by Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, the assessee became approximately 50% owner of the said building from assessment year 1997-98...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »